The present invention generally relates to electronic screens, such as those used in television sets and computer monitors. More particularly, the present invention resides in a process for dividing such electronic screens into discrete, independently operating sub-screens which can be simultaneously manipulated and accessed.
In the past, electronic screens, such as those used for televisions and computers, have only supported a single active window or screen at a time. For example, even televisions with picture-in-picture capabilities have only one active screen which can be manipulated at any given time. Similarly, in computer monitor systems, although the computer monitor screen may show a plurality of windows at any given time, only one window is active. There are instances when the computer screen can be divided into two screens, but the contents of the two windows are controlled by the same software, for example, a word processing function allowing two separate windows to be created to view two documents. However, only one of the documents can be accessed and manipulated at any given time, even in this scenario.
US Publication number 20020191028 of Senechalle discloses a window manager user interface for creating and managing a variety of split screen configurations in which the applicants of this reference refer to a frame window and pane windows. The user is able resize the various windows, reposition the windows, and generally manipulate them in a variety of manners on the video screen. The windows do not interfere with each other [0026]. Presumably separate programs are operating in each of the windows but the “user can generally only work in one pane window 14 at a time” [0055]. The user can select the program for any particular window [0060]. In addition, a user can have a single application or “different applications in one or more pane windows” [0062]. Other than the foregoing, the reference is virtually and exclusively concerned with window size, shape, arrangement and similar features of the various windows on the display screen.
The present invention, in addition to providing multiple windows on a single display screen, allows an interaction between the content of different screens such as the user selecting a “portion of the of the primary display to be presented in another display” [0030], something specifically not taught or suggested in Senechalle, and an arrangement for facilitating “seamlessly and easily interact and manipulate applications across various hardware, and visual presentation configurations” [0029]. also not taught or suggested in the Senechalle reference.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,010,755 to Anderson for a Virtual Desktop Manager teaches a method for a user to preview multiple virtual desktops in a graphical user interface. Displaying, tiling, cascading, and other user-controllable processes for managing a multi-faceted display are provided. However, the signals to be displayed are merely resized, opened, closed, cascaded, tiled, maximized, minimized and so forth. In other words, the invention of Anderson comprises now classical conventional manipulation. But what the present invention teaches, and Anderson does not is the actual manipulation of conventionally generated display signal from a conventional source such as a program application and moreover, the actual manipulation is accomplished by the present invention's provision of a user controlled screen operating system. Anderson '755 does not provide such a user-controlled screen operating system, nor do any of the following patents.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,563,547 to Smith discloses a System and Method for Displaying a Television Picture Within Another Displayed Image. Smith '547 teaches a picture-in-picture television display where the two displayed images may be moved around and resized relative to each other, but the viewer cannot controllably modify or customize the dynamic display, as is provided for in the present invention. Nowhere does Smith '547 teach that the viewer can controllably zoom or shrink the television picture so as to be able to see just a portion of the TV picture desired—but the present invention does so, which is the conceptual step forward of the present invention, and the present invention does so by means of the uniquely provided screen operating system that Smith '547 fails to provide.
Additionally, U.S. Pat. No. 5.841,435 to Dauerer for a Virtual Windows Desktop discloses a process for a virtual windows desktop system. It, like Smith '547 and Anderson '755, provides for conventional computer desktop grouping, hiding, and redisplaying of groups of application windows or icons. But Dauerer '435 is silent on user modification of a plurality of data streams by means of a dedicated screen operating system as the present invention provides.
Turning to Standard English dictionary definitions of the generic term “manipulate” in combination with human computer interaction, Wikipedia furnished the following definition of “direct manipulation” on a computer screen, on 16 Apr. 2007):                Direct manipulation interface        Direct manipulation is a human-computer interaction style that was defined by Ben Schneiderman and which involves continuous representation of objects of interest, and rapid, reversible, incremental actions and feedback. The intention is to allow a user to directly manipulate objects presented to them, using actions that correspond at least loosely to the physical world. Having real-world metaphors for objects and actions can make it easier for a user to learn and use an interface (some might say that the interface is more natural or intuitive), and rapid, incremental feedback allows a user to make fewer errors and complete tasks in less time, because they can see the results of an action before completing the action. An example of direct-manipulation is resizing a graphical shape, such as a rectangle, by dragging its corners or edges with a mouse.        Individuals in academia and Computer scientists doing research on future user interfaces often put as much or even more stress on tactile control and feedback or sonic control and feedback than on the visual feedback given by most GUIs. In these cases the term “graphical user interface” seems inadequate. As a result the term direct manipulation interface has been more widespread in these environments.        
While all of the above-cited generic material relating to computer manipulation is generally applicable of the invention, the Wikipedia definition of the term “direct manipulation” combined with “computer graphics” is also important to consider in the context of the invention.
Wikipedia.org furnished the following definition of Direct manipulation in computer graphics on 16 Apr. 2007):                Direct manipulation in computer graphics        Because of the difficulty of visualizing and manipulating various aspects of computer graphics, including geometry creation and editing, animation, layout of objects and cameras, light placement, and other effects, direct manipulation is an extremely important part of 3D computer graphics. There are standard direct manipulation widgets as well as many unique widgets that are developed either as a better solution to an old problem or as a solution for a new and/or unique problem. The widgets attempt to allow the user to modify an object in any possible direction while also providing easy guides or constraints to allow the user to easily modify an object in the most common directions, while also attempting to be as intuitive as to the function of the widget as possible. The three most ubiquitous transformation widgets are mostly standardized and are:                    the Translation widget, which usually consists of three arrows aligned with the orthogonal axes centered on the object to be translated. Dragging the center of the widget translates the object directly underneath the mouse pointer in the plane parallel to the camera plane, while dragging any of the three arrows translates the object along the appropriate axis. The axes may be aligned with the world-space axes, the object-space axes, or some other space.            the Rotation widget, which usually consists of three circles aligned with the three orthogonal axes, and one circle aligned with the camera plane. Dragging any of the circles rotates the object around the appropriate axis, while dragging elsewhere will freely rotate the object (virtual trackball rotation).            the scale widget, which usually consists of three short lines aligned with the orthogonal axes terminating in boxes, and one box in the center of the widget. Dragging any of the three axis-aligned boxes effects a nonuniform scale along solely that axis, while dragging the center box effects a uniform scale on all three axes at once.                        Depending on the specific common uses of an object, different kinds of widgets may be used. For example, a light in computer graphics is, like any other object, also defined by a transformation (translation and rotation), but it is sometimes positioned and directed simply with its endpoint positions because it may be more intuitive to define the position of the light source and then define the light's target, rather than rotating it around the coordinate axes in order to point it at a known position.        Other widgets may be unique for a particular tool, such as edge control to change the cone of a spotlight, points and handles to define the position and tangent vector for a spline control point, circles of variable size to define a blur filter width or paintbrush size, IK targets for hands and feet, or color wheels and swatches for quickly choosing colors. Complex widgets may even incorporate some techniques from scientific visualization to efficiently present relevant data (such as vector fields for particle effects or false color images to display vertex maps).        Direct manipulation, as well as user interface design in general, for 3D computer graphics tasks, is still an active area of invention and innovation, as the process of generating CG images is generally not considered to be intuitive or easy in comparison to the difficulty of what the user wants to do, especially for complex tasks. The user interface for word processing, for example, is easy to learn for new users and is sufficient for most word processing tasks, so it is a mostly solved and standardized UI, while the user interfaces for 3D computer graphics are usually either difficult to learn and use and not sufficiently powerful for complex tasks, or sufficiently powerful but extremely difficult to learn and use, so direct manipulation and user interfaces will vary wildly from application to application.        References                    Frohlich, David M, “The history and future of direct manipulation,” Behavior & Information Technology 12. 6 (1993), 315-329.            Hutchins, Edwin L., James D. Hollan, and Donald Norman. Direct manipulation interfaces. (1985)            Schneiderman, Ben. Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer-interaction. (2004)            Schneiderman, Ben. “Direct manipulation: a step beyond programming languages,” IEEE Computer 16(8) (August 1983), 57-69.                        See wikipedia.org for “Direct manipulation interface” on 16 Apr. 2007)        
Accordingly, there is a need for a screen operating system which divides an electronic screen into discrete, independently operating sub-screens which are independently fed data and can be manipulated through discrete access lines. The present invention fulfills these needs and provides other related advantages.